In the wake of the Trayvon Martins death, many on the Left have been blaming Floridas Stand Your Ground law, a statue passed last year that allows use for the use of deadly force in self-defense (my home state of Georgia passed a similar law a few years ago). They say that the law empowered George Zimmerman to target Martin and claim self-defense.

While I have no opinion on Zimmermans guilt or innocence in the case at this point  I believe too little is known to jump to conclusions one way or the other, the ire over the Stand Your Ground law seems a little misplaced and, in some cases, dishonest. Dave Kopel, a Second Amendment scholar, explains:

The assertion that Florida law allows shooting whenever someone believes it to be necessary is a flat-out lie. The actual law of Florida is that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony (Florida Statutes, Section 776.012).

The second part of the law provides special provisions for self-defense against violent home invaders or carjackers. Neither of those is relevant to the Zimmerman case.

If the factual claims of Trayvons supporters are true, Mr. Zimmerman criminally attacked Trayvon and killed him, while having no reasonable belief that Trayvon was perpetrating a forcible felony, or imminently about to kill or gravely wound Mr. Zimmerman. So Floridas self-defense laws simply would not apply, since Mr. Zimmerman would have no right under Florida law to use deadly force.

Floridas rule that deadly force may be used to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm or the imminent commission of a forcible felony is the norm throughout the United States. [ ] Like the majority of American states, Florida does not mandate that victims of a violent crime attempt to retreat before they defend themselves. The retreat rule is irrelevant, regardless of whether you believe Trayvons advocates or Mr. Zimmermans advocates.

According to one side, Mr. Zimmerman was the criminal aggressor. Thus, he would have no self-defense rights at all. According to the other side, Trayvon attacked Mr. Zimmerman, knocked him to the ground, got on top of him and continued the attack. So Mr. Zimmerman would have had no ability to retreat. Either way, the retreat rules for lawful defenders have nothing to do with this case.

Despite what the gun prohibition lobbies claim, the no-retreat rule has deep roots in traditional American law. At the Supreme Court, the rule dates back to the 1895 case of Beard v. United States, in which the great Justice John Harlan wrote for a unanimous court that the victim was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground, and meet any attack upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force as, under all the circumstances, he, at the moment, honestly believed, and had reasonable grounds to believe, were necessary to save his own life, or to protect himself from great bodily injury.

The great progressive Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes also expressed the unanimous opinion of the court that if a man reasonably believes that he is in immediate danger of death or grievous bodily harm from his assailant he may stand his ground and that if he kills him he has not succeededthe bounds of lawful self-defense. Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife (Brown v. United States, 1921).

According to a survey released yesterday by Public Policy Policy  a Democratic polling firm used by the Daily Kos, Floridians are largely not buying the fuss over the law in the afterman of Martins death:

Floridians generally support the firearm self-defense law that George Zimmerman will use as part of his defense in the Trayvon Martin case, but they also support him being charged with second-degree murder because they think he is guilty.

42% of Florida voters support the Stand Your Ground law, and 32% oppose it. Republicans overwhelmingly support it (60-13), and independents like it as well (45-31), but Democrats oppose it (24-50).

49% think Zimmerman was appropriately charged, while 25% think he was not. The verdict is more narrow when it comes to his actual guilt of said charge31% believe he is guilty, and 26% think him innocent. Despite the hullabaloo, 46% believe Zimmerman will be able to receive a fair trial, and 37% think he cannot.

Floridians generally do not believe Zimmerman was motivated by racism when he killed Martinonly 32% think he was, and 45% think he wasnt.

With recent developments in the case, we may never know what exactly happened in Sanford, Florida in late Feburary, but Martins death has, been politicized to the point of absurdity, taking away any real possibility of a fair trail for Zimmerman, something he should be entitled to whether a jury ultimately finds that he commited a crime or not.

Its not surprising that the anti-gun lobby would launch an attack on Stand Your Ground laws. They would use just about any random act to do so, even though their ultimate goal of disarming the public would leave law-abiding Americans without a reasonable means to defend themsevles.

The actual law of Florida is that a person is justified in the use of deadly force if (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself

I'm confused by this writer. Unless bouncing someone's head off a sidewalk is a new game, it will definitely cause great bodily harm.

2
posted on 04/25/2012 5:46:37 AM PDT
by Azeem
(There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury and ammo.)

Stand your ground doesnt go far enough.
Id like to see a law saying that you can pursue with deadly force. The police sure wont help you.
Four months ago, my daughter had her home broken into and all her valuables (cash, computers, TVs, guns, a few pieces of furniture, etc.) taken. She got there in time to see the thiefs pickup truck pulling away and she followed the thief back to his home. With the pickup in his driveway, she called the cops and told the cops that she was parked outside of the thief’s house and that her possessions were in plain sight and in the pickup. The cops told her that since nobody was hurt, it was an insurance problem not a police problem and she should just go home and file an insurance claim. (Nevada)

“Four months ago, my daughter had her home broken into and all her valuables (cash, computers, TVs, guns, a few pieces of furniture, etc.) taken. She got there in time to see the thiefs pickup truck pulling away and she followed the thief back to his home. With the pickup in his driveway, she called the cops and told the cops that she was parked outside of the thiefs house and that her possessions were in plain sight and in the pickup. The cops told her that since nobody was hurt, it was an insurance problem not a police problem and she should just go home and file an insurance claim. (Nevada)”

OUTRAGEOUS! We actually had something quite similar happen to us. A bunch of our stuff found in a stolen car parked at Cabrini Green in downtown Chicago. The police called the owner of the car (who was a neighbor of ours) and told her to come get the car. She found all the stolen stuff in it and refused to take the car until all the stolen goods were returned to the rightful owner. Cops just wanted her to take her car with all the stuff in it! They couldn’t be bothered! And then they wonder why police are getting an AWFUL reputation as slugs!

I’m thinking not - just simple self-defense as TM had him pinned to the ground, he could not get away, and was in reasonable fear of serious or even fatal injury. Maybe there was a fight over the gun - maybe not. Either way he had the right of self-defense.

The freedom-hating leftmedia has been, quite predictably, short-stroking this whole episode as a foil against SYG laws since the beginning. Ironically, it is precisely because the law-abiding are facing more and more physical hostility of the manner exhibited by Trayvon Martin that such laws were enacted. Coincidence? I think not.

Also, from a legal standpoint and as I understand it, SYG isn't even applicable here, since George Zimmerman was on his back getting thumped, and in that situation any "duty to retreat" is obviously moot since you can't retreat.

I strongly support the castle doctrine, "stand your ground" laws. It is a fundamental human right to protect self and family.

AND--I would be extremely reluctant to approach any house--especially a stranger's house--at night and would be careful anytime.

Not long ago, in a rural area, I got lost in the woods. Night fell.

I had no choice but to cross a stranger's land to reach the road.

As I walked down his long driveway, a car approached, obviously the owner coming home.

The car slowed as it approached me.

I was very, very, very careful to keep my hands exposed, to stay in the headlights, and to do nothing threatening.

The man stopped. His boy was in the car with him.

As soon as he rolled down his window, I said in my most polite manner: "I'm sorry. I got lost in the woods, and I'm trying to get back to the road."

It helped that I was walking away from his house.

He relaxed and told me to proceed.

It is true that I am white and have a sophisticated, educated accent. But even so--I was very, very, very careful. I couldn't help wondering later how it might have been had I been otherwise.

My advice to anyone who finds himself in such circumstances--especially if not white and not having a sophisticated, educated accent--is (1) to avoid any such circumstances if at all possible and (2) to be very, very, very, very, very careful if you can't. Never mind being right. Be safe!

I understand the arguments against the castle doctrine, but self-defense--especially as our world becomes more and more dangerous--trumps them.

17
posted on 04/25/2012 7:53:01 AM PDT
by Savage Beast
(Nothing is more enlightening than truth. Nothing is darker than mendacity.)

Those in support of SYG are smart enough to imagine themselves or their loved ones in a situation in which they desperately need SYG.

Those who oppose SYG can only imagine other people using SYG to defend themselves, and they do not want them to be able to defend themselves. This implies that they either: want to oppress and control others, and/or want to protect those who want to oppress and control others, and/or are so terrified of unexpected loud noises that they are frightened to death from the very existence of guns in the world.

18
posted on 04/25/2012 8:07:04 AM PDT
by yefragetuwrabrumuy
("It is already like a government job," he said, "but with goats." -- Iranian goat smuggler)

Those who oppose SYG can only imagine other people using SYG to defend themselves, and they do not want them to be able to defend themselves.

Do not forget ignorance or misinformation. Most of those who oppose SYG believe what they have been told by the MSM. They have been told that SYG means that people who get a concealed carry permit have a license to kill anyone they want at any time. That is what has been put forward, for the most part, by the MSM.

Most of these misinformed people would support SYG if they knew the facts.

So does this one. Moreover, what really scares me is any effort to repeal the other side of the law besides SYG, which is to forbid any civil action for wrongful death and to forbid any local antigun zealots in the State Attorney's Office from bringing the case to trial anyway, knowing full well they'd lose but just wanting to bleed the poor citizen dry and make him go broke in his defense so as to make an example and thus deter future citizens from protecting themselves. That was a standard back when Janet Reno was our not so great State Attorney here in Miami-Dade.

22
posted on 04/25/2012 9:30:26 AM PDT
by ExSoldier
(Stand up and be counted... OR LINE UP AND BE NUMBERED...)

As a Pennsylvania refugee now living in Florida, I watched and wrote my PA assemblywoman and senator during the HB 40 debates last year. It is a very similar law but one important distinction that you should know of, inserted in the waning days of the debate: In order to “Stand Your Ground” in PA, the other party must be in possession of a firearm or lethal weapon. This is not the case in FL.

A lot of speculation going on. I'm afraid a lot of people would sacrifice Zimmerman to avoid riots.

A poster on another thread said it looked like the grand-jury was being bypassed in order to persecute, er, prosecute Mr. Zimmerman. It actually seems supported by this Huffington Post article, which says:

And unless Zimmerman pleads guilty, the affidavit by itself, summarizing the investigation by the special prosecutor, will force him to stand trial without a grand jury having heard any evidence and returned an indictment, but simply on a hearsay statement from two investigators who summarized their version of the evidence.

Things are very "interesting" if that is the case; as it is a clear violation of the Fifth Amendment.

27
posted on 04/25/2012 10:25:05 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

Actually, she could have busted in and shot the perps; legally. NV Constitution, Art 1, Section. 1. Inalienable rights. All men are by Nature free and equal and have certain inalienable rights among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; Acquiring, Possessing and Protecting property and pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness. See, protecting property.

28
posted on 04/25/2012 10:28:14 AM PDT
by OneWingedShark
(Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)

My understanding is that the ‘castle doctrine’ was always in effect and that no, you wouldn’t have to retreat. What PA legislators called the ‘Castle Doctrine’ was really an expansion to non-castle (outside your home) situations, aka ‘Stand Your Ground.’

So no, you wouldn’t be expected to retreat. But that same crackhead on the street comes after you without a weapon, perhaps you would be expected to retreat. However, nowhere outside of Philly would you ever get convicted for standing your ground.

Your story is just another example of like everything elses in our culture being dumbed-down. There used to be a day when car theft and burglary got you thrown in jail and the key thrown away.

But I like this story to get the police to act:

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE

Roger Gresse, an elderly man, from Zanesville, OH, was going up to bed, when his wife told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed. Roger opened the back door to go turn off the light, but saw that there were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked, "Is someone in your house?" He said "No," but some people are breaking into my garden shed and stealing from me."

Then the police dispatcher said. "All patrols are busy. You should lock your doors and an officer will be along when one is available."

Roger said, "Okay."

He hung up the phone and counted to 30.

Then he phoned the police again.

"Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people stealing things from my shed. Well, you don't have to worry about them now because I just shot them," and he hung up.

Within five minutes, six police cars, a SWAT team, a helicopter, two fire trucks, a paramedic, and an ambulance showed up at the Gresse residence, and caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the policemen said to Roger, "I thought you said that you'd shot them!"

Roger said, "I thought you said there was nobody available!"

37
posted on 04/25/2012 1:52:26 PM PDT
by QT3.14
(Never Argue With A LIBERAL...They Will Drag You Down To Their Level, Then Beat You With Experience!)

SYG simply says that IF you are lawfully in a place and are attacked that you may meet force with force and if faced with imminent death or great bodily injury you may use deadly force.

If it is established that you acted validly in self defense then you are IMMUNE from prosecution AND civil liability. It is not just an affirmative defense it provides for immunity. Very rare in law.

A motion to dismiss, PRIOR TO TRIAL, is critical as it allows you a “free shot” (no pun intended, of course ;-) to dismiss all charges and obtain IMMUNITY from any civil damages lawsuits - wrongful death, civil assault, etc.

With SYG, at such a hearing you need only establish by a preponderance of the evidence (50% +1) that, using the reasonable man standard, you were in fear of imminent death or severe bodily injury, for you or another, to act with deadly force.

The judge acts as both trier of fact (normally the province of the jury) and of law.

If the judge finds self-defense all charges are dismissed and the neither perp nor his family can sue without having to pay all costs just for bringing suit.

Even at trial, if a motion to dismiss fails, the law is in effect I believe.

No cases that I know of but aside from the prosecution needing to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, one could argue that as a matter of self defense, the reasonable man/preponderance of evidence burden of proof may be applicable allowing a dismissal at that level of proof before a jury.

Even then the prosecution alternatively has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the elements of 2nd degree murder.

The last three paragraphs are speculation the rest is not. Trust me! Been there, done that. SYG applies here. ;-)

Not to sidetrack this thread, but in all honesty your story sounds awfully bizarre. You’re in a rural area by yourself, get lost in the woods as nightfall approaches and you have no idea where you are? How would you know whose land you’re on in the first place and what direction the road was at? What were you doing in the rural woods by yourself in the first place? Do you normally just park your car in rural areas and walk into the woods without a clue as to where you are? You may be white, sophisticated & educated, but you better stay on the pavement from here on. You’re not making a good case for being sophisticated & educated. Let the farm boys & girls roam around in the woods at night. They will find their way home.

The 32% opposed to “stand your ground” are those preying on the majority and the bleeding hearts hiding in their secure enclaves. Those on the front lines who live with the fear of home invasions and street muggings are all in favour of the right to stand your ground and defend yourself and your family.

“Id like to see a law saying that you can pursue with deadly force. The police sure wont help you.”

No. That is a very bad idea. You do not take a human life over theft, even if the police our negligent. Your daughter did the right thing to merely follow and report. The police were clearly negligent, but that is not a reason to allow citizens to kill over being burglarized when their persons we not in danger of harm. The law assumes, and rightly, that human life (even that of a thief) is worth more than mere property. Self defense laws (concealed carry) are proper and need to be continued, but what you advocate is too over the top and a form of anarchy.

“Four months ago, my daughter had her home broken into and all her valuables (cash, computers, TVs, guns, a few pieces of furniture, etc.) taken. She got there in time to see the thiefs pickup truck pulling away and she followed the thief back to his home. With the pickup in his driveway, she called the cops and told the cops that she was parked outside of the thiefs house and that her possessions were in plain sight and in the pickup. The cops told her that since nobody was hurt, it was an insurance problem not a police problem and she should just go home and file an insurance claim. (Nevada)”

I don’t know why the “police” didn’t respond....it sounds like dereliction of duty OR they didn’t believe your daugther (they were wrong either way). Why didn’t she call the County Sheriff IF the city police did not respond? Whatever, your daugther has my sympathy and respect for keeping her head. I hope your story is an aberration, and not the norm. I can understand your outrage - I would feel the same. Just don’t let it drive you to extreme measures. It makes you the “criminal.”

45
posted on 04/25/2012 6:11:52 PM PDT
by Sola Veritas
(Trying to speak truth - not always with the best grammar or spelling)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.